On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:36 PM, nichdel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Secretary reports list eir budget in the ABM. E should have no budget
> switch if e is not a player.
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Kerim Aydin <[email protected]>
> Date: 8/3/16 18:30 (GMT-06:00)
> To: Agora Discussion <[email protected]>
> Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs Regarding OscarMeyr
>
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, nichdel wrote:
> > I submit the following statements for judgement, barring OscarMeyr from
> > judging them (luckily, barring applies to people, not players).
> >
> > 1) OscarMeyr is not currently a player.
> >
> > 2) OscarMeyr hasn't been a player since January 28th, 2014.
>
> Can you provide any arguments as to why e's a player, given that,
> if nothing else, umpteen registrar's reports have ratified that
> e isn't a player during this time?
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:36 PM, nichdel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Secretary reports list eir budget in the ABM. E should have no budget
> > switch if e is not a player.
> Gracious nichdel, if that's your issue, how about CingFJ on that question?
Gratuitous arguments:
R2162 says:
c) Optionally, exactly one office whose holder tracks instances
of that switch. That officer's (weekly, if not specified
otherwise) report includes the value of each instance of that
switch whose value is not its default value; a public
document purporting to be this portion of that officer's
report is self-ratifying, and implies that other instances
are at their default value.
By this, self-ratification only applies to ratifying the values of
existent instances of the switch; it does not ratify non-existent
switch instances into existence.
